장해등급결정처분취소
1. The phrase “ October 10, 2013,” written in the column of the complaint on September 17, 2013, stated as the date of disposition, is a disposition that is not the date of disposition.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 10, 1982, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic substances during the period when he was employed as a technician in the technical profession, and was engaged in the electric cableing service. On June 10, 1993, the Plaintiff returned to chronic chronitis, toxical disease, cerebral disease, hemosis, nephical hemosis, bovine spongiformiform, and dominitis (hereinafter “instant injury disease”). The Plaintiff received medical care approval from the Defendant through litigation and received medical care until October 31, 2011.
B. After the completion of medical care, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for disability benefits for brain disorders, etc. arising from the instant injury. On September 17, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to determine the Plaintiff’s disability grade as Class 9 15 (a person whose work remains limited to considerable degree of harm to his/her function or mental function).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s mental function disorder falls under class 3 (a person who is not able to engage in life-long labor due to considerable impediment to the function or mental function of the relevant nursing system) or is more serious than class 15, as determined by the Defendant, even if not, rather than class 9.2) A separate disability grade should be set for the Plaintiff’s mental function disorder due to an extension of machinery among the injury and disease in the instant case, and the Plaintiff’s final disability grade should be set, including this.
B. 1) According to the result of the court’s entrustment of the appraisal of medical records for the Hanmodong Hospital (Machina), it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff falls under class 4 of class 7 (the degree of this part of the Plaintiff’s disability is a person who has only 1/2 of the ordinary people’s labor ability due to an impediment to the mid-tour boundary, and thus, it is reasonable to view that this part of the Plaintiff’s disability falls under the category of class 4 of class 7 (the degree of this part of the Plaintiff’s disability is not easy to rest with the function or mental function of the new system).